Talk:Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Lisa Madigan, former Illinois Attorney General

• ... that in Public Access Opinion 16-006, the Illinois Attorney General ordered Chicago police officers to release their private emails about the police-involved murder of Laquan McDonald? Source: opinion

• ALT1: ... that in Public Access Opinion 16-006, the Illinois Attorney General ruled that emails of public employees must be disclosed to the public, even when communicated on private email accounts?

Created by Edge3 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks! Also, I should mention that the author of the opinion, Lisa Madigan, is now the former Attorney General as she no longer serves in that office. I'm not sure how this would be worded in the hook or the image caption. Edge3 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but 2 paragraphs under Background lack any cites, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Thanks for reviewing it, and for making the extra edits to make it even better! As you suggested, I've added more citations to the Background section. Could you please take a look any let me know if you have more feedback? Edge3 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Restoring tick per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 01:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Really interesting article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   see notes below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   earwigs shows some overall, and while it looks like most of it is due to quotes or case names, the matches are rather high so if you could rephrase the parts that aren't quotes/names if possible, that would be great Looks okay now, most of the matches are from quotes or case names

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold until the issues noted are addressed Passed!

Notes

1. Lede: In this matter, the Attorney General found - does "this" refer to the prior appellate court decision matter or the murder of Laquan McDonald matter? Its not clear
2. Lede: The ruling was hailed by - does "The ruling" refer to the prior ruling discussed at the start of the paragraph, or the Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 ruling? Not clear
3. Background: Off-duty police officers reportedly used their personal devices to communicate on accounts not owned by CPD. - this is a bit confusing. Accounts can be owned? Specifying that its using accounts not owned by CPD suggests that personal devices can also be used for CPD accounts, and then there is also the non-personal devices. Perhaps "used their personal accounts" to communicate"? Also, what does this have to do with anything? I assume its because they were communicating about the incident? A bit later it clarifies that CNN asked for "all emails ... from Police Department email accounts and personal email accounts where business was discussed" so perhaps clarify in the initial sentence that the off-duty officers were discussing business, so its clear how that connects (otherwise it could be that they are just texting friends and otherwise using their personal devices normally, which is what you would expect)
4. Opinion: To determine whether an email pertains to public business, the inquiry must focus on the content of the email, not the method by which it is transmitted. - what inquiry? Suggest "an inquiry"
5. Reactions: Davis further suggested - what was Davis' first suggestion? I don't see it, so I'm confused by the "further"

   I've addressed all five comments above via this edit. Please let me know if I need to make additional changes. Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

   The remaining This development in the lede is still unclear to me. Perhaps split the paragraph, so its clear its no longer discussing City of Champaign v. Madigan? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

   Ok, I've split that paragraph and clarified it further by adding "more recent". (See edit.) Edge3 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

General:

1. for enforcing FOIA, are required under FOIA, etc. - should probably be "the FOIA"
2. Public bodies in Illinois, including CPD, etc. should also probably be "the CPD". Maybe? Not as sure on that one as I read it in my head

   (Replying to both points above.) Most sources, including the opinion itself, doesn't include "the" before "FOIA". I also see that in the opinion, "the" appears before "CPD" in very few cases, but certainly not in the majority of cases. Looking at WP:THE, it's not entirely clear which style is preferred, but that guideline tends to point towards whatever is commonly used in reliable sources. Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

   Make sense, ack --DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

3. Why are the notes (a, b, c) not refences?

   I'm trying to separate the explanatory footnotes from the sources. (See WP:REFGROUP and WP:EXPLNOTE.) The notes (a, b, c) are not WP:RS that I'm using as citations to comply with WP:V. Rather, those notes are meant to provide additional context or information. Two of them are court cases; the only thing I'm doing is providing the full case citation, with a link to the judicial opinion. The third note is a link to a state statute, since we don't have a Wikipedia article on that statute. Does that make sense? Let me know if you disagree with my usage of explanatory footnotes. Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

   Hmm. To me they all look like they would be references, but I guess I'm not very familiar with using explanatory footnotes in articles. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for your feedback! I'll address the remaining concerns shortly. Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded some portions to avoid close paraphrasing. Let me know if there are other portions you would like me to review. Edge3 (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Edge3: See replies above - tiny issue with "This development" DannyS712 (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Thanks! Let me know if there's anything else you think should be changed. Edge3 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing else is needed - looks good to me, passed! --DannyS712 (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/City of Champaign v. Madigan/archive1

 – Edge3 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Cat

• After CPD denied CNN's request - "the" CPD? Organization are often preceded by articles, make sure this is consistent throughout too

  I struggle with this one. In Chicago-based publications, the "CPD" acronym usually is not preceded by the article "the", much in the same way that we don't say "the CNN". See, for example, an inspector general's report on CPD's use of force practices, and also the state Supreme Court's opinion in Green v. Chicago Police Department, which is a FOIA case. On the other hand, some sources use "the CPD". There's this academic paper analyzing complaints against "the CPD", and our very own article on Chicago Police Department uses "the" in the same way.

  This issue was brought up during the GA review, and back then I noted that WP:THE doesn't expressly favor one style over the other. We should also recognize that the opinion itself omits the article "the" when mentioning "CPD". Edge3 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• the Attorney General found that the police officers were acting on behalf of the police department, turning their messages into public records - "turning their messages into" makes it seem instantaneous; "making them public records" is better IMO

  Changed. Edge3 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts - according to whom? How did Yager know about this?

  This was according to the Kidd 2016 source, quoting Ben Schuster, a Chicago-based attorney. [P]olice officers who were off duty reportedly were sending and receiving messages via personal accounts on personal devices, [Schuster] said. Since Schuster was just a third-party commentator, I wouldn't quote him directly in the article. Edge3 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• However, CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request - CNN's request? I thought Yager made the request and she was a producer for CNN. Did she make the request on the behalf of CNN (in which case this phrase is fine) or did she personally submit it with her name?

  Yager made the request as part of her work for CNN. Note that the attorney who represented her, Drew Shenkman, was doing so in his capacity as counsel for CNN. Edge3 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• By 2018, journalists and citizen activists filed at least 10 - "filed" or "had filed"? If the decision was made after 2018, the former would be fine, but because the opinion was released in 2016, "had filed" is correct (I think- my technical grammar knowledge is minimal, I'm just going off of what sounds right)

  Since the opinion was released in 2016, and we're talking about something that would happen over the next two years, I think it's more correct to say "would file". I've made this change. Edge3 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• The image of Rahm seems irrelevant, since he only gets one sentence. If you want an image, something related to FOIA or City of Champaign would make more sense

  Changed to a photo of the Champaign City Building. Edge3 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Lisa Madigan is mentioned nowhere in the article's body

  I added her as the named author of the opinion, along with a footnote explaining that the opinion was signed on her behalf by the counsel to the Attorney General. As for the rest of the article, I avoided naming Madigan directly to emphasize that the opinion was issued by an office, with input from several attorneys, rather than just Madigan acting on her own. Edge3 (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• To determine whether an email pertains to public business, one must focus on the content of the email, not the method by which it is transmitted - according to whom?

  Added attribution to the AG. Edge3 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• However, while the ruling applies to government employees, it does not apply to elected officials - ditto, make sure these kinds of statements are attributed to the Attorney General, otherwise it seems like Wikipedia's opinion rather than theirs

  That wasn't the opinion of the Attorney General, but rather the Information Management Journal. I've moved that statement to the "Reactions" section and attributed accordingly. Edge3 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• The ruling was a binding opinion, a rare power that is exercised by the Attorney General in only less than half of one percent of complaints submitted to the Public Access Counselor - two things: one, what's a binding opinion actually do, and two, the math of "less than half of one percent" hurts my brain; "very few" will do

  I clarified this a bit. Binding opinions are legally binding on the public body, and anyone who disagrees with the opinion must appeal in court within 30 days. Most of the complaints to the Attorney General's office are resolved through non-binding advisory opinions, which don't impose any legal obligations on the public body to comply. You can see more info at Illinois Public Access Counselor. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Dean of the Henry W. Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia - how would he fit this on a nameplate? That's one hell of a title- cut it down, maybe just "journalism professor at"

  He really wasn't a professor, because the dean job tends to be more administrative. In any case, I've shortened the name of the college to simply "Grady College", which aligns with the title on his faculty bio. Edge3 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That's all, excellent job! I'll reread it at the FAC but anticipate no more concerns. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

All good now. One last thing, not too major- you said that you wanted to emphasize that this opinion was issued by the office, and Madigan was just the office's leader. If that's the case, why is she the first image people see when they click this article? That makes it seem like her involvement is much bigger than you intend. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair point! I've swapped that image with the screenshot of the opinion. Edge3 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Expiration of bills

@Mike Christie: I didn't have an opportunity to fully respond to you before the FAC was closed. See also my comments on that thread.

I've added a brief clarification that states that the expired bills didn't become law. I'm reluctant to add more because I would otherwise be going into an explanation of Illinois legislative procedures, which is probably outside the scope of this article. The important takeaway for the reader is that the proposals did not become law.

I welcome your thoughts on this. Edge3 (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think what you've added is fine. I had a look for a suitable link but couldn't find one, but I think it's OK now. Congratulations on getting this promoted to FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)